Monday, May 31, 2010

Stuff That I Listened To: Fate - Dr. Dog or Nateva Music Festival Preparation Pt. 1



For any of you readers who don’t know me personally (at least one? Maybe?), I’m going to the Nateva Music Festival in early July. I don’t know most of the bands other than the headliners (I’m mostly going to see P-Funk and The Flaming Lips), so I decided to check out a few albums by the bands I’m not familiar with. I’m toying with the idea of making this a weekly feature up until the festival. For now, let’s say every Sunday, word? The first album I’ve checked out is Fate by Dr. Dog.


Dr. Dog are an indie-pop band from Philadelphia; Fate is their fifth studio album, released in 2008. Like most indie-pop bands, Dr. Dog are very much informed by rock bands from the 60s and 70s. What’s nice about them is that though this album draws a lot of inspiration from The Beach Boys, The Band, and the Beatles, there are a lot of small touches that are unmistakably modern - things like sampled drums and keyboards - that allow the band to be more than another retro indie group.

That being said, one of the problems I have with this album is that at times it’s just a little bit TOO old-sounding. Dr. Dog have a habit of relying on nostalgia for a lot of their tunes, and while this works very well for the most part, I feel like this overreliance on throwback sounds stops them from finding their own personality as a band – in my notes for this review, I described four of the eleven songs as “Beatles-y”, and comparisons to The Beach Boys, The Band, and The Rolling Stones and possibly other well-known classic rock acts are bound to occur to even the most casual of music listeners.

Luckily, the band has enough personality that they’re able to stand apart from other, boring indie-pop bands. Most notably, they’ve got a commanding control over “the hook”, that indescribable quality of music that makes a song “catchy”. These guys clearly know how to write some great melodies – I challenge you not to get the “choo-choo train” chorus of From stuck in your head. They’ve got a really nice, smooth quality to their music. The melodies are easily digestible, and the album manages to stay exciting through a variety of styles and moods, adding in some pretty cool flourishes like organs, strings, and clarinets.

The stand-outs here are pretty fantastic. The aforementioned From is absolutely infectious, though not one of the most original songs on the album; Army of Ancients' tremolo-picking guitar part gives it a mariachi feel, and the song contains a powerful vocal performance by singer Eliza Jones; and closer My Friend (which is oddly set up as two songs in one) starts off as a cool jammy number, but evolves into a stadium-rock tinged tune – there’s this interesting part in it near the end where the guitar line from another song, The Ark, is repeated, which makes me feel like that whole section is all repeated musical themes from the album. If this is the case, that’s pretty damn cool.

A couple songs near the end are a bit forgettable – 100 Years is a by-the-numbers The Band rip-off, and Uncovering the Old has the coolest intro off of the album, but there just isn’t much to it. Even in these cases, though, there’s usually one or two interesting things happening – an unusual piano tone, or some neat Wilco-esque noise, or a ticking clock leading into a drum beat.

Overall, Fate is just a solid album. It’s filled with some great melodies and neat song structures. At times, its use of nostalgic, 60s/70s rock sounds is a tad overbearing, but the album is just long enough that it doesn’t wear out its welcome. It’s not exactly an album you MUST hear, but it's alot of fun; I’ll definitely be checking out more of Dr. Dog’s stuff over the coming weeks.

Check this out if you like:
-The Band
-The Beatles
-Wilco
-Other indie-pop
Suggested Tracks:
-From
-Army of Ancients
-Hang On

Note: So, this "weekend extravaganza" didn't quite work out as planned.  I wanted to get at least one more post up; let's just say there were some scheduling conflicts.  I may have a post up tomorrow night, but if not, I'm gonna shoot for Tuesday.  Word.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Stuff That I Listened To: "The Suburbs" and "Month of May" by Arcade Fire

Two new Arcade Fire songs have just been released from their upcoming album The Suburbs (available August 3).  You can check 'em out here.

Overall.....meh, I dunno.  The songs are more overtly indie-sounding then the Arcade Fire have been in the past: Month of May sounds like an LCD Soundsystem song or something, and The Suburbs sort of sounds like New Pornographers.  I like both of the songs well enough, but they're lacking some of the unique instrumentation and emotional intensity of past Arcade Fire releases.  Then again, I used to dislike Antichrist Television Blues (off of Neon Bible) and now that's probably one of my favourites of theirs, so the new stuff could just as easily grow on me.  Actually, The Suburbs is starting to grow on me as we speak.  The album will be pre-ordered, anyways.  EDIT: The vinyl is a double vinyl, so it's $24.99.  Yipes!  Never mind about that pre-ordering.



What do you guys think of the new tracks?  Sound off in the comments section!

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

HOLY INACTIVITY, BATMAN!

Hi all!

So, again I must apologize for not updating as much as I would like to.  Luckily, I'm going to Ottawa this weekend, which means I'll be bored basically all the time, which means TONS OF POSTS!!!  Well, probably two or three at least.  I just went to the library to pick up some graphic novels for reading in the car.  So this weekend, you should see features on at least some of these:

-DJ Hero
-Asterios Polyp by Dave Mazzucchelli
-Laika by Nick Abadzis
-Zot! by Scott McCloud
-The Punisher Omnibus by Garth Ennis
-Whatever new music I opt to listen to in the car
-The first part of a new feature (but probably not)

So check back here on Saturday night for the first part of my weekend post EXTRAVAGANZA (or something)!!!

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Stuff That I Saw - Iron Man 2


Note: This review will contain some slight spoilers, but nothing too bad.  You'll probably be able to see the plot coming from a mile away anyways.

Back in 2008, the first Iron Man film kicked off a summer filled with great comic book movies.  The film wasn't particularly smart, and it wasn't perfect - the villain was somewhat weak, and the final fight scene was pretty lame - but it managed to be an extremely enjoyable time at the theater, with great special effects, a cast with loads of chemistry, and a witty, fast-paced script. After making tons of cash at the box office and being overwhelmingly well-received by critics, everyone knew there would be a sequel, but does it carry the same appeal as the first? Find out after the jump.


 Mickey Rourke as Whiplash (though they never actually call him that).

Iron Man 2 picks up basically right where the first movie ended - Tony Stark has made public knowledge of the fact that he is Iron Man, and the United States government is now trying to seize the suit to be used as a government weapon. Meanwhile, Stark is being poisoned by the material in his arc reactor, which both powers the Iron Man suit and keeps the shrapnel in his body from reaching his heart and killing him. Meanwhile, Ivan Vanko, the son of a business associate of Stark's father (Howard Stark), is plotting revenge on Tony for Howard screwing over Ivan's father back in the day. Meanwhile, Justin Hammer, a rival weapons dealer, is attempting to build his own version of the Iron Man suit for mass military consumption. Meanwhile, Tony is being watched very closely by S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury's somewhat secret militant organization, to see if he is fit to join the "Avengers Initiative".

So, as you can see from the above paragraph, there's quite a lot of plot threads happening at once. Iron Man 2 is a movie that has a lot of responsibility - it has the dual task of being the first movie which really starts to lead up to the upcoming Avengers movie, as well as having to support it's own canon and lead up to it's inevitable next sequel. The movie mostly does a good job of keeping all the balls in the air, but it's somewhat unfocused, which is a bit of a shame as the first film was pretty damn tight in terms of pacing. Part of the problem (and this happens with a lot of comic book sequels) is that there's no more origin story to rely on. This means that it's a bit more difficult on the writer's part to come up with new and exciting situations for the character, because that initial learning curve for the character is lost. Overall, I thought the movie did a pretty solid job of keeping everything together, but I'm a comic book fan; for someone who doesn't know about The Avengers film, or doesn't even know who The Avengers are, I'd imagine the film would seem rather bloated. We're not talking Spider-Man 3 levels here, but there's a few too many THINGS happening at once, and it doesn't always pay off.

Everyone from the first film is just as great here as they were then - Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow have a lot of chemistry as Tony Stark and his assistant, Pepper Potts, and I liked that Jon Favreau gave his character a bigger part in this movie (he's the director, in case you didn't know, but also plays Happy Hogan). Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as James Rhodes, and fits right in with the returning cast. In terms of the newcomers, Sam Rockwell does a great job as the weasel-y Justin Hammer; Scarlett Johansson doesn't have much to work with as Natasha Romanoff (AKA Black Widow) but she's just fine despite her lack of a Russian accent (better than having a bad accent I suppose); Samuel L. Jackson is okay as Nick Fury, but he's pretty obviously just playing himself and not the actual character; and Mickey Rourke, despite overacting a bit, particularly in the beginning of the movie, does a good job as the sinister Ivan Vanko.

OF COURSE I CAN'T STOP YELLING, 'CUZ THAT'S HOW I TALK!!

I actually want to talk about Ivan Vanko a little bit, because one of the sacrifices made to get all that plot into the film was character development on the part of some of the new faces (though the movie actually does a good job of expanding the characters of the returning cast, most notably - and importantly - Tony).  Ivan Vanko is touted as the main villain of Iron Man 2, but he's not really on-screen all that much, and while he hints at having a bit of depth, he never really does more than that; he's also a little bit TOO ridiculous, being a dude who clearly knows his way in a fistfight AND a brilliant scientist. It's just a bit too much to swallow, even from a comic book movie. The Whiplash in this movie is sort of a mash-up of the comic book Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo, another big Iron Man villain, and this generally works out pretty well. He fares better than Iron Monger from the first film, but I was really disappointed with his action scenes. He only gets two in the whole movie, and they're both extremely short and feature him getting beaten way too easily.

Ah, those action scenes though. I'll admit, none of them have that same exhilarating, fresh feeling as in the first movie - again, one of the problems with not having an origin story - but aside from the really weak Whiplash scenes, they're pretty well done. I won't ruin too much, but I will say that the last fight was, shamefully, just as weak as in the first movie. Overall though, there's some pretty cool stuff here.

Look, Iron Man 2 is not The Dark Knight; but then, the movie never really tries to be anything other than an entertaining summer popcorn flick. At the end of the day, is it as good, as fun, or as exciting as the first one? No, it's not. It's bloated whereas the first one was tightly-paced, it's a bit cheesy whereas the first one was able to be undeniably cool; it's big, it's dumb, and it's predictable in the most Hollywood way possible. But it still nails the characters, serves up some solid action scenes, and throws in some great chemistry between its cast. If you hated the first Iron Man, this won't change your mind; if you liked the first one, you'll PROBABLY like this one.  Me? I dug it, but I've got to admit that I walked away from the theater feeling just a little bit hollow.

Stuff That I Liked:
- Well done translation of the characters from the comic
- Snappy, rapid-fire dialogue
- Good performances by most of the cast
- Returning characters are expanded upon from the first film
- Some pretty sweet action scenes
- Doesn't try to be anything it's not
- The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 of the series -  not as well done as the first, goofier and harder to take seriously, but still fun.


Stuff That I Didn't:
- Lacks the freshness of the first film
- Tries to do too many things at once, sacrificing new character development and pacing
- Extremely predictable story structure, sometimes relying on some weird Deus Ex Machina-type stuff.
- Lacks narrative tension
- Some shots that are just plain cheesy
- Introduction of lead-up threads to Avengers movie could turn off non-comic book fans
- Whiplash is kind of a pussy

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Stuff That I Read: The Dark Knight Strikes Again





A couple things:  First off, this will be spoiler-free, but contains SOME spoilers in regards to the ending of Dark Knight Returns.

Those of you who know me know that I am a rabid fan of The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. It is the book that got me back into comics, and is still one of my favourite graphic novel; whenever I’m bored or have nothing else to read, I know I can always go back to my trusty copy of Dark Knight Returns. It was with great curiosity and fear, then, that I finally picked up a really cheap copy of the sequel, The Dark Knight Strikes Again, released in the year 2000; let me just say that it was a good thing that I only spent 10 bucks on it.

For those not in the know, the landscape of comics was changed in the 80s with the release of a few works that ushered in a new age for the medium. Stories like Alan Moore’s Watchmen, Art Speigalman’s Maus and, of course, Dark Knight Returns were darker in tone and more thematically complex than the simple, feel-good Bronze Age of the 1970s. Dark Knight Returns chronicles the return of a 50-something aged Batman from decades of being away from the costume as he deals with his old foes and allies, and tries to clean up the now-dilapidating cesspool that is Gotham City. The miniseries is a stroke of brilliance, filled with really great, stylized artwork, brooding, noir-ish atmosphere, and signaling a somewhat more critical view of Batman as someone who is vaguely psychotic; this idea is nothing new to Batman these days, but it was pretty revolutionary when Dark Knight Returns was released in the late 80s. The comic is not dated in the slightest and remains a fantastic read.

The Dark Knight Strikes Again, however, lacks most of the qualities that made the Dark Knight Returns so great, and was the first work to usher in Frank Miller’s new “half-parody” form of writing that he’s stuck to for the past decade or so. I struggle with Miller’s newer writing; I can never tell if he’s joking or totally serious, and most of his newer work just seems like a parody of his older, better, smarter work. His work has only become more adolescent and over-the-top, in a bad way. This really shows through in DKSA.

The Dark Knight Strikes Again takes place three years after Bruce faked his own death at the end of Dark Knight Returns. The world has become a different place while Batman’s been away, super-saturated with advertisements and superhero wannabes. In short, it’s a really extreme version of (gasp!) our own world. In these last few years, Bruce Wayne has been building an army of soldiers. His goal? Save the world from the police-state dictatorship of Lex Luthor.

First off, you’ll notice from the above plot synopsis that the story is generally a lot bigger than the first Dark Knight series. Batman’s team isn’t just himself and a sidekick, but a menagerie of trained soldiers and other superheroes; Bruce Wayne is no longer just trying to save Gotham City, but the ENTIRE WORLD. This, overall, is rather goofy and silly – the whole thing reeks of misplaced self-importance. Most troubling, however, is Miller’s characterization of Batman himself. In Dark Knight Returns, Batman was certainly troubled, but he was still a good person, concerned with bettering society. In this book, Batman is a self-absorbed asshole; he’s trying to save the world more for his own kicks than for the good of mankind. Worse, he’s close-minded in a much more absolute way than he’s ever been shown in print. Batman has always had a sense of stoicism and unflinching ideals, but this is ridiculous; the primary problem is that Batman is absolutely no better than his enemies in Dark Knight Strikes Again – hell, he may actually be worse. This would not be a problem if Miller scrutinized Batman for this, as he hinted at in Dark Knight Returns, but it’s written in such a way that he clearly wants us to root for Batman, to get off on his ludicrous, dictator-like quest for “justice”, as other superheroes praise him for doing what they cannot do. There’s a reason they can’t do what he does in the graphic novel; because it’s fascism, and it is neither super nor heroic.

Not helping matters is the fact that a lot of the writing is just plain lazy. Miller has a habit of repeating simple phrases ad nauseum to take up space and cover up his lack of writing direction. For example, in an early scene, Carrie Kelly (Robin in Dark Knight Returns, but now with her own identity as Catgirl) attempts an infiltration mission to rescue The Atom and Plastic Man. Throughout the mission, she continuously repeats the term “It's a piece of cake.  It’s easy”. While at first this works pretty well, displaying Carrie’s nervousness towards being on a mission by herself, it quickly becomes distracting and repetitive. This wouldn’t be such a big problem but EVERY character does it at some point in the story; it makes the writing incredibly awkward and unnatural.


Carrie Kelly, now as Catgirl.  Note the grossly Photoshopped background.  Yuck.

Say what you will about Miller’s writing, but he’s always been a reliable artist. He’s got an extremely unique style, and he’s especially great with panel construction and action scenes. In fact, once you see Frank Miller’s stuff, you start to realize how bad a lot of other artists are at drawing action. Unfortunately, Dark Knight Strikes Again is without doubt Miller’s weakest work of his career. It’s extremely ugly, lacking the polish and breathtaking spreads of his older work. Character proportions are all off, faces of the same character look extremely different from one panel to the next, and the whole thing just has a very sloppy, unkempt look, at times looking more like fan-art than the work of an artist who’s been in the industry for 20+ years. Even worse is the fact that Miller’s usually lovely action scenes are now totally distorted and unclear. Most of the scenes are befuddling; I had to look at single pages for minutes at a time to discern what the hell was going on, and this was a continuous problem. Part of the blame goes towards frequent collaborator Lynn Varley, who decks out the work with extremely saturated and downright cheesy coloring. Everything is very bright and fluorescent, a very clear contrast to Dark Knight Returns’ subdued, dark coloring. The combination of Miller’s unusually weak artwork and Varley’s just-plain-gross colours creates something that’s pretty hideous. You could make the argument that this is a purposeful effect, but on-purpose or not, this is simply a bad looking book.

 Here's Batman fighting Superman from the first Dark Knight....

...and here's a similar fight from Strikes Again.  Quite an aesthetic change.  This is one of the better pages from the book, too.


Overall, Dark Knight Strikes Again is a pretty huge failure. I struggle to think of a single successful element in it – there’s one neat action scene involving Superman, and at times Miller’s dick-ish characterization of Batman actually kind of works, but overall, it’s a big, putrid mess of a story. The writing is weak, the art is weak, and worst of all, it’s rather dumb. If you’re a fan of Dark Knight Returns (like me), you’ve probably already heard how bad Strikes Again is, but you’ll probably also be curious enough to check it out. I understand this, and can confirm that it is, in fact, as bad as you’ve heard, but it’s probably not going to stop you anyways. For everyone else, just don’t read this, quite frankly. In fact, I’d suggest not reading much of any Frank Miller from the past decade.  Just go to your nearest book/comic store, pick up a copy of Dark Knight Returns, and read away. And if you liked it, avoid Dark Knight Strikes Again like the plague.

Stuff That I Liked:
- Some good ideas
- A couple funny lines
- Cool fight with Superman
- The Flash's new costume
- Plastic Man

Stuff That I Didn't
- Amateurish, ugly artwork
- Annoying, wholly unlikable interpretations of well-known DC characters, most notably THE MAIN CHARACTER
- Lazy writing
- Doesn't fit with the feel of the original Dark Knight Returns

Saturday, May 1, 2010

New Stuff

Hi everybody!  Just wanted to apologize for not updating in a while.  Coming up soon, you should see pieces on some or (hopefully) all of the following:

-Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon's run on The Punisher
-Just Cause 2
-The Fall of Math by 65daysofstatic
-Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (my first book review!  Although if it's bad, I'm not putting it up.)
-The first part of a new feature

Also, as a quick plug, I've started writing for my friend Ben's new music site called Avast Soundscape.  I've written a couple things for it; they're not up yet, but they will be soon, so check out the site and keep looking for my writings on it!

Finally, I've decided to remove my Google ads and the Reactions thing, because frankly, they're both pretty useless.

-Daniel